Ken Epp

[Access To Information Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need some clarification. When you asked for the unanimous consent for the motion which was put by the member on the Liberal side, I very distinctly said no. I want to know what the ruling was that you made on that point of order. I did not hear it.

[The Debt, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since this government took office in 1993 it has added about $80 billion to our federal debt. To pay off that $580 billion mortgage would require payments of about $50 billion a year for 25 years. That is $3,300 from every taxpayer in the country every year and until the Minister of Finance is 85 years old.

When will the government finally give Canadians a tangible and workable debt reduction plan?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2000]

I grew up in Saskatchewan and we do not have those rules in Canada.

One of the great freedoms that should accrue to human beings is the freedom of movement within the land they are going to and the land they are coming from.

My grandmother often expressed gratitude because her family grew up in Canada instead of Russia, from which they had escaped. Even though I did not experience it firsthand, the stories were repeated frequently in my youth and I learned them.

It was very important that in the early 1920s Canada extended an open hand of welcome to my family. I am one who believes that if I have received a benefit, I should pay it back. It is the old maxim of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I do this even at home. When I picked up a hitchhiker the other day I told him that I was not giving him a ride because I was looking for points. Long before I ever ran for elected office I picked up hitchhikers because I was a hitchhiker myself when I was a young student.

Having had my family come to Canada as immigrants, I believe we should do everything possible to admit people who have the potential to be good citizens, who will contribute to our society by working hard, providing for themselves and others.

Bill C-31 is supposed to address some of the problems that we have within our immigration system, but as some of my colleagues have pointed out in earlier debate today it falls far short of the goals that most Canadians want for our immigration system.

When I think of the people who come to Canada as bona fide good people, it really is an affront to them that we would do anything less than protect their integrity entirely by making sure that those who are not qualified to be here, who are here on illegal or dishonest pretences, should not be permitted to stay, and thereby to tarnish the reputation of others.

Sometimes we in my party are charged with not being immigrant friendly. That is a totally false accusation. Whenever people say that they are distorting the truth about what we believe in. We in the Canadian Alliance believe that there should be a very orderly immigration system and that people who meet the qualifications should be able to enter our society in Canada, enjoy it and contribute to it.

I am very concerned about the fact that some people who come to Canada are given exceedingly excessive opportunities to rip off the system when it has become very clear that they are not honest immigrants. They do not come under the classification of being people who would satisfy the needs of Canadian society.

How does one handle this? I believe the intent of the bill should have been that in the event people are shown to be, for example, trafficking in people, we should have taken very strong measures against the traffickers. It was not done. I am concerned that, with our very weak policies, Canada will become the worldwide haven for international criminals. It is totally unconscionable that these immigrant smugglers take large amounts of money from people who need to escape from their own country, for whatever reason. These illegal people runners take large amounts of money from them and then, to add insult to injury, put their lives at risk by putting them into vessels which are not seaworthy.

Canada, being a very compassionate nation, rightfully opens up its doors to them when they come to our shores. I do not think anybody would suggest that we should not look after their immediate physical needs, but as long as we have a very soft policy on this kind of immigration it will continue and it will grow. The only way to stop it is to make sure that those who are doing it do not have the reinforcement of having success in their illegal enterprise.

I believe that the government should take very strong measures in this area. This is not our party policy, but one of the things which I personally think we should do is use radio transmissions to communicate directly with people in the countries from which these people come. We should put out a message which says that for those who are not genuine refugees, just simply coming to our shores will not mean automatic access to our country. That would dry up the source of business for mercenaries who trade in human beings.

What most Canadians want, certainly the ones I have talked to, is an immigration system that accepts refugees who are genuine refugees, and accepts with open arms immigrants who are capable. One of the shortcomings in our country is that when we are not able to train our own citizens in certain skills, Canadian immigration laws become a huge barrier to our business people and manufacturers who want people to come from other parts of the world where they have received the training. They are not permitted to come here. Yet other people, with all sorts of nefarious motivations, are allowed to come and we do not have the mechanisms to get rid of them.

I stand as a proud Canadian, as one who believes that we should show compassion and care for those people who genuinely need it. I stand simply to encourage the government to improve the refugee and immigration policies, bills, motions and laws. This bill will not do that.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter the debate on the immigration and refugee protection act.

Unfortunately I had to leave for a while to attend a committee meeting, but I listened to as much of today's debate as I could. I was taken back in my memory to the early days of my life, when the fact that we were immigrants to Canada was burned into my brain and into my heart.

I am one of those very fortunate people who is here because my grandparents made the decision to immigrate into Canada. I am a first generation Canadian. My parents, though they did not know each other when they came to Canada, were each in their very early teens when they came here. I believe my dad was 12 years old.

I remember listening to the conversations of the adults in our family. We were supposed to be sleeping, but we would listen to them talking about life in the old country, the hardships they endured and the way in which they escaped. They were very grateful to be in Canada.

I am one who fundamentally is supportive of the idea of immigration. I like the idea that in Canada we can move from province to province freely, especially because my family came from a country where to go to a neighbouring city to visit relatives they had to get a permit from the government.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very pointed question. He likes to talk about the rating among the international scene of Canada as one of the best in infrastructure. I am sure we can go to countries where the infrastructure is not as good, but we have some large problems in this country.

Even though it is not in my riding, I am thinking of that area in Saskatchewan where my kids live. The roads are being beaten to pieces by huge trucks hauling grain, now that the rail system is being dismantled.

The Trans-Canada Highway is the country's major artery from east to west. In Saskatchewan and I understand in other parts as well including parts of Ontario, it is a narrow two lane road which is so incredibly dangerous it is not acceptable.

We had the occasion to visit Swift Current shortly after a horrendous accident on the Trans-Canada Highway just west of Swift Current. It involved a half-ton with some workers for a siding outfit. Two new buses that were being transported were in that accident. They all were completely destroyed in the fire that ensued. It involved two semi-trailer trucks. If I remember correctly there were three deaths on that one occasion.

My brother took me over to see the wrecks. Our hearts went out to the families whose loved ones had been needlessly killed on a highway that is totally inadequate as the Trans-Canada Highway, the main transportation artery across the country.

Surely the member must feel at least a little tinge of conscience and must admit that our system is just not quite up to where it should be.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

The Canadian Alliance.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

The hon. member is not a parliamentary secretary. He could be but he is not.

In his speech the member indicated that the infrastructure program had nothing to do with politics. Then I have a very simple question. If it does not involve politics, why is it that the cheque was delivered by none other than the Liberal Minister of Justice who found it necessary to travel to my riding in a big flurry for only one purpose, to deliver the cheque?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Are you not a parliamentary secretary?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

The question is from where will we get the money. That is a good question. Meanwhile the Liberals are trying to figure out how to spend the bit of surplus they get. They should be applying more of it toward the debt. That is exactly my point.

The other question I have is for the hon. member who gave his speech and not the parliamentary secretary who feels obliged to heckle me while I am making this wonderful dissertation.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member who just finished speaking has been in the House for many years and does not even yet know the most rudimentary rules of this place. For example, he spoke about our new colleague in the first person. He cannot learn anything. He cannot learn the name of our party. He is clueless.

I have two or three questions or comments. The first one is with respect to debt retirement. We in the Canadian Alliance are promoting that we should get the debt reduced because it has a huge impact on our budget. Large amounts of money go to pay interest. To retire our present debt in 25 years would mean applying a total of $50 billion in surplus every year for 25 years to pay the principle and interest on it. That is assuming that interest rates do not rise too much above what they are now. I do not think that I will get—